3 G453
Lubunti
Submiti oben
the pombs.
weoparding the
Racer
in (2)
(2) Be
ZZ.
new Crown Lenses
the
8
28/8
granting
2
Care
sub.dorded Town & suburban lolo.
No. clears up many questions. It seems that
the plots are divided up, not by sub-lettings, but by
assignments, the assignees paying their full share of
the rent. In paragraph 4 it is stated that there is
no privity of contract between the assignees of the
sections and the assignee of the remaining portion.
Whether that is, in fact, the case depends upon the
terms of the assignments made by the original lessor.
The point is not of much importance, and I think we
can leave it that the Governor's statement is correct.
If it is correct, then it is true that the assignee
of the remaining portion would not be liable for the
rent payable by the other assignees, but the Governor
omits to add that the original lessor does remain
liable, although he has assigned all his interest.
I think paragraph 7 of the despatch shows that
there is a considerable advantage, from the point of
view of the Government, in having a separate contract
and
Love
with each tenant, which there disposes to a large
extent of the objection in paragraph 4 of ('(2).
As regards the equity of granting leases for the
original term to assignees whose interests are
determined by re-entry, according to the Digest of
Instructions regarding the disposal and tenure of land
forming the enclosure to (3) on 72867/30, the practice
is for the Crown to fix a moderate rent and take a
large premium when granting a lease (see under
Headings "Auction" and "Rent"). Presumably, the
lessee, on assigning a portion of his interest, would
apportion that moderate rent and likewise take a large
premium